A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Campylobacter spp. Prevalence and Concentration in Household Pets and Petting Zoo Animals for Use in Exposure Assessments

Abstract

Animal contact is a potential transmission route for campylobacteriosis, and both domestic household pet and petting zoo exposures have been identified as potential sources of exposure. Research has typically focussed on the prevalence, concentration, and transmission of zoonoses from farm animals to humans, yet there are gaps in our understanding of these factors among animals in contact with the public who don’t live on or visit farms. This study aims to quantify, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter carriage in household pets and petting zoo animals. Four databases were accessed for the systematic review (PubMed, CAB direct, ProQuest, and Web of Science) for papers published in English from 1992–2012, and studies were included if they examined the animal population of interest, assessed prevalence or concentration with fecal, hair coat, oral, or urine exposure routes (although only articles that examined fecal routes were found), and if the research was based in Canada, USA, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Studies were reviewed for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis by two reviewers, compiled into a database, and relevant studies were used to create a weighted mean prevalence value. There were insufficient data to run a meta-analysis of concentration values, a noted study limitation. The mean prevalence of Campylobacter in petting zoo animals is 6.5% based on 7 studies, and in household pets the mean is 24.7% based on 34 studies. Our estimated concentration values were: 7.65x103cfu/g for petting zoo animals, and 2.9x105cfu/g for household pets. These results indicate that Campylobacter prevalence and concentration are lower in petting zoo animals compared with household pets and that both of these animal sources have a lower prevalence compared with farm animals that do not come into contact with the public. There is a lack of studies on Campylobacter in petting zoos and/or fair animals in Canada and abroad. Within this literature, knowledge gaps were identified, and include: a lack of concentration data reported in the literature for Campylobacter spp. in animal feces, a distinction between ill and diarrheic pets in the reported studies, noted differences in shedding and concentrations for various subtypes of Campylobacter, and consistent reporting between studies.

A Comparative Exposure Assessment of Campylobacter in Ontario, Canada

“…(75) The prevalence of Campylobacter in pets and petting zoo animals was determined through a literature review and metaanalysis, whereas the farm exposure models relied on data from FoodNet Canada surveillance. (76,77) The concentration values for all four models relied on the literature review (Appendix Tables C1-C4). Due to a lack of data estimating ingestion per event and concentration, there is overlap among these four models.…”

Estimates of the burden of illness for eight enteric pathogens associated with animal contact in Canada

“…Animal contact transmission of Giardia sp. may be relatively uncommon as current molecular epidemiological data suggests that animals are more often infected with species-specific assemblages that do not cause disease in humans [60,[80][81][82]. Molecular characterization of Giardia sp.…”

Prevalence, risk factors, and geographical distribution of zoonotic pathogens carried by peri-urban wild dogs

“…are mostly considered foodborne pathogens, particularly through contaminated food of poultry origin (Hall et al, 2005;Stafford et al, 2008). However, environmental sources, including soil and water, and animal contact have an important contribution to human infection (Pintar et al, 2015;Whiley et al, 2013). Domestic dogs have been identified as a risk factor for human infection (Tenkate & Stafford, 2001, Stafford et al, 2007 with dogs less than one year old being the most susceptible to infection (Hald et al, 2004;Sandberg et al, 2002;Westgarth et al, 2009).…”